Skip to content

Month: February 2020

Mike Pence lies just like his Dear Leader

They figure they can say anything and the cult will believe them. And they are right.

Fact-check.org:

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, newly crowned coronavirus point man Mike Pence spun the facts in claiming he moved decisively when confronted with a disturbing HIV outbreak in a rural Indiana county when he was governor of the state.

“We worked the problem early in the year from a law enforcement standpoint, from a health standpoint,” the vice president told Hannity on Feb. 27. “I don’t believe in needle exchanges as a way to combat drug abuse, but in this case, we came to the conclusion that we had a public health emergency, and so, I took executive action to make a limited needle exchange available.”

But Pence’s fellow Hoosier Pete Buttigieg, the former South Bend mayor now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, says there’s more to the story. “He was dragged kicking and screaming into that,” Buttigieg told CNN’s Don Lemon on Feb. 27. “Had he acted earlier, I believe that the worst parts of the HIV epidemic could have been avoided.”

Buttigieg is right. An unusually high number of HIV cases in Scott County, Indiana, was first spotted by health authorities in November 2014. Pence did not declare a public health emergency and authorize a needle exchange program for the county until March 26, 2015.

A 2018 study by Yale University researchers, published in the medical journal The Lancet HIV, concluded prompt action could have dramatically reduced the seriousness of the outbreak.

“The upper bound for undiagnosed HIV infections in Scott County peaked at 126 around Jan 10, 2015, over 2 months before the Governor of Indiana declared a public health emergency on March 26, 2015,” the study said, concluding that “an earlier public health response could have substantially reduced the total number of HIV infections (estimated to have been 183–184 infections by Aug 11, 2015).”

“It was a total collapse of public health leadership and a dereliction of duty in Indiana,” one of the study’s authors, Yale epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalves, told the Washington Post. “They could have avoided this epidemic if science took the lead instead of ideology.”

While it can’t really be known what would have happened if Pence and others had acted differently, the paper uses mathematical modeling to conclude better surveillance and earlier public health actions would have lessened the epidemic.

“A comprehensive response, including access to clean syringes for people who inject drugs, as well as therapies such as buprenorphine and methadone, could avoid new outbreaks of HIV and HCV in at-risk counties in the first place,” Gonsalves told Yale News in 2018.

With Pence’s new responsibilities in dealing with the coronavirus, his response to the HIV crisis in Scott County has returned to the spotlight. Pence told Hannity that he thinks one of the reasons President Donald Trump picked him to head the administration’s coronavirus response was his experience in handling the HIV episode.

The outbreak of HIV was linked to extensive use by Scott County residents of a prescription opioid painkiller called Opana, which was taken off the market in 2017. Needle-sharing was common in the area, where many members of a family often live in the same house.

Experts say that in situations like the one in Scott County needle exchange programs are essential. But Pence, a social conservative, was very much opposed to them, seeing them as contributing to drug abuse. (According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, syringe services programs “do not cause or increase illegal drug use.”) It took much lobbying by other officials to get Pence to give the program — which was illegal in Indiana — the green light.

On March 23, 2015, months after the outbreak began, Pence said he was going home to pray on the issue, according to the New York Times. Soon afterward he declared a public health emergency and approved the program. “It was disappointing that it took so much effort to bring the governor on board,” Ed Clere, a Republican state representative who championed the needle exchange, told the Times in 2016.

Even as he announced the new approach, Pence made clear his reluctance to adopt it. “I do not enter into this lightly,” he said. “I don’t believe effective anti-drug policy involves handing out drug paraphernalia.”

Once launched, the program was considered a success. According to the New England Journal of Medicine97,000 syringes were distributed to the 277 people who signed up. They were taking a median of five injections a day, according to the publication.

Despite the criticism, Pence continues to talk positively about his reaction to the HIV crisis.

“Indiana would go on to change the law to mirror what action I had taken,” he told Hannity. “It was a moment where we had brought — we had brought all of the resources to bear, first from a health perspective, a law enforcement perspective, and I’m glad to say that we got all of those people treated. Everyone was able to get support and help and we move forward and the community recovered.”

He repeated this lie today in front of the whole country defending Trump’s choice of him by saying he is an expert on public health crises.

So, not only is the man who is running the country a pathological liar and an imbecile, the man to whom he has assigned the crisis is also a pathological liar and a faith-based non-believer in science.

Fabulous.

Bring back that sunny day: Weathering with You (***)

https://i0.wp.com/www.awn.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline/public/image/featured/1051251-review-weathering-you-finding-place-where-you-belong.jpg?ssl=1

It turns out that it is not just my imagination (running away with me). A quick Google search of “Seattle rain records” yields such cheery results as a January 29th CNN headline IT’S SUNLESS IN SEATTLE AS CITY WEATHERS ONE OF THE GLOOMIEST STRETCHES IN RECENT HISTORY and a Feb 1st Seattle P-I story slugged with SEATTLE BREAKS RECORD WITH RAIN ON 30 DAYS IN A MONTH. Good times!

February was a bit better: 15 rainy days with 4.1 hours a day of average sunshine. But hey-I didn’t move to the Emerald City to be “happy”. No, I moved to a city that averages 300 cloudy days a year in order to justify my predilection for a sedentary indoor lifestyle.

In fact it was a marvelously gloomy, stormy Sunday afternoon in late January when I ventured out to see Japanese anime master Makato Shinkai’s newest film Weathering with You (yes, this is a tardy review gentle reader…but what do you expect at these prices?). Gregory’s Girl meets The Lathe of Heaven in Shinkai’s romantic fantasy-drama.

I probably should have taken notes; some of the finer narrative details have slipped what’s left of my addled mind. But I remember the rain. There’s lots of rain. In fact the film opens with a rainstorm; a rather tempestuous one that tosses our young protagonist, a teenage runaway named Hokada (voiced by Kotaro Daigo) into the drink (he’s hopped on a ferry, fleeing his rural island home to lose himself in the bustling metropolis of Tokyo). He’s saved by a man named Keisuka (Shun Ogari), who hands Hokada his business card.

Rain-soaked Tokyo is a less-than-welcoming new home for the likes of Hokada, who finds himself sleeping in alleys for a spell, with naught but the clothes on his back and a growling stomach. One day, he encounters a compassionate girl around his age named Hina (Nana Mori), a fast food worker who gives him a free meal. Hina and Hokada are bonded by family difficulties; with Hokada being a runaway and Hina recently orphaned (she barely supports herself and her young brother with her meager McDonald’s wages).

Fate continues to bounce Hokada around like a tennis ball. Still living on the streets, Hokada crosses paths with a Yakuza; he barely survives the encounter and stumbles across a gun, which he decides to hang onto for protection. Still, he’s buoyed by his burgeoning friendship with Hina and decides to look up his rescuer from the ferry. Turns out his savior runs a somewhat dubious news stringer agency out of a cramped office.

Keisuka’s sole employee is his flirty 20-something niece, Natsumi (Tsubasa Honda), who convinces her uncle to hire Hokada on spec to see if he can help them chase down stories to sell to tabloids. Hokada’s first assignment is to dig up some background for Keisuka’s article-in progress on a local legend regarding so-called “Sunshine Girls”, who allegedly have supernatural abilities to stop rain events purely through concentration and prayer.

One day by chance, Hokada is shocked to espy his new friend Hina being shepherded into a seedy exotic dance club by a less-than-savory looking character. Hokada pulls out the gun that he found earlier and confronts the man, who has intimidated Hina into working for him. Hokada and Hina flee to the rooftop of an abandoned building, where there is a Shinto shrine. Hina convinces Hokada to toss his gun away and reveals that she has the ability to stop rain with prayer. I know-that’s a lot to unpack in just one afternoon.

Therein lies the film’s main weakness…there’s too much to unpack in one afternoon (by the way, there are more developments to the story-so I haven’t spoiled anything). Shinkai can’t decide what he wants to convey: a coming-of-age tale, a social “message” drama, a fantasy, a statement about climate change. This may be an unfair comparison, but the narrative is not as focused and cohesive as in his previous film, the outstanding 2017 film Your Name. That said, this is a very different type of story, and more ambitious in scope.

Still, there’s a lot to like about Weathering You, especially in the visual department. The Tokyo city-scapes are breathtakingly done; overall the animation is state-of-the-art. I could see it again. Besides, there are worse ways to while away a rainy Seattle afternoon.

Previous posts with related themes:

Your Name

Paprika & The Lathe of Heaven

More reviews at Den of Cinema

Dennis Hartley

Confidential Informant?

Meanwhile, this is weird:

In a closed-door briefing to members of Congress about government surveillance, a senior Justice Department official was asked a surprising question. 

The question came when intelligence and national security officials gathered earlier this week to brief members of the House Intelligence Committee on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a law with some authorities that will expire in several weeks. Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, prefaced her question by saying it was a bit off-topic. According to two sources with knowledge of the briefing, Speier then asked John Demers, the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division at the Justice Department, whether Jeffrey Epstein had ever worked as an undercover FBI asset. Then she pressed him on whether he had any personal knowledge of Epstein—a convicted pedophile who died in jail last August, awaiting trial—working with the FBI

Demers responded that he worked for the Justice Department, not the FBI, and that he had no knowledge of Epstein doing such work. The question raised eyebrows, as it appeared to be based on a theory that law enforcement officials may have turned a blind eye to the serial rapist because he helped them gather information. 

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment, and a spokesperson for Speier did not provide on-record comment. 

The Miami Herald reported in November 2018 that, as part of an extremely generous plea deal he received from then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta’s office in 2007, “Epstein provided what the government called ‘valuable consideration’ for unspecified information he supplied to federal investigators.” The Herald said it was unclear what information, if any, Epstein shared with law enforcement. 

And Vicky Ward reported for The Daily Beast last August that Acosta later told Trump transition team officials that Epstein’s case was connected to intelligence matters. He went on to become Secretary of Labor. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” Acosta privately told Trump transition team officials before his confirmation, per Ward’s story.

On July 8, 2019, the Justice Department charged Epstein with sex trafficking of underage girls. In a lengthy press conference two days later, Acosta fielded a question about whether or not the sexual predator was an “intelligence asset.”

“So, there has been reporting to that effect,” he said obliquely, per The Washington Examiner. “And let me say, there’s been report to a lot of effects in this case. Not just now but over the years. And again, I would, I would hesitate to take this reporting as fact.”

There is something very off about this whole Epstein story. It probably has nothing to do with his death but rather a lot more to do with his life. If he was acting as an informant, you have to wonder who he was informing the authorities about.

Strange…

Prepping for the common good

This piece by Zeynep Tufekci in Scientific American about prepping for this virus may be of use to some of you who haven’t been thinking too much about this until now:

As the new human coronavirus spreads around the world, individuals and families should prepare—but are we? The Centers for Disease Control has already said that it expects community transmission in the United States, and asked families to be ready for the possibility of a “significant disruption to our lives.”

Be ready? But how? It seems to me that some people may be holding back from preparing because of their understandable dislike of associating such preparation with doomsday or “prepper” subcultures. Another possibility is that people may have learned that for many people the disease is mild, which is certainly true, so they don’t think it’s a big risk to them. Also, many doomsday scenarios advise extensive preparation for increasingly outlandish scenarios, and this may seem daunting and pointless (and it is). Others may not feel like contributing to a panic or appearing to be selfish.

Forget all that. Preparing for the almost inevitable global spread of this virus, now dubbed COVID-19, is one of the most pro-social, altruistic things you can do in response to potential disruptions of this kind.

We should prepare, not because we may feel personally at risk, but so that we can help lessen the risk for everyone. We should prepare not because we are facing a doomsday scenario out of our control, but because we can alter every aspect of this risk we face as a society.

That’s right, you should prepare because your neighbors need you to prepare—especially your elderly neighbors, your neighbors who work at hospitals, your neighbors with chronic illnesses, and your neighbors who may not have the means or the time to prepare because of lack of resources or time.

Prepper and survivalist subcultures are often associated with doomsday scenarios and extreme steps: people stocking and hoarding supplies, building bunkers and preparing to go off the grid so that they may survive some untold catastrophe, brandishing weapons to guard their compound while their less prepared neighbors perish. All this appears both extreme and selfish, and, to be honest, a little nutty—just check the title of the TV series devoted to the subculture: Doomsday Preppers, implying, well, a doomsday and the few prepared individuals surviving in a war-of-all-against-all world.

It also feels like a scam: there is no shortage of snake oil sellers who hope stoking such fears will make people buy more supplies: years’ worth of ready-to-eat meals, bunker materials and a lot more stuff in various shades of camo. (The more camo the more doomsday feels, I guess!)

The reality is that there is little point “preparing“ for the most catastrophic scenarios some of these people envision. As a species, we live and die by our social world and our extensive infrastructure—and there is no predicting what anybody needs in the face of total catastrophe.

In contrast, the real crisis scenarios we’re likely to encounter require cooperation and, crucially, “flattening the curve” of the crisis exactly so the more vulnerable can fare better, so that our infrastructure will be less stressed at any one time.

What does “flattening the curve” mean for the current COVID-19 threat facing us: the emerging pandemic of this human coronavirus? Epidemiologists often talk about two important numbers: R0 or how infectious a disease might be, expressed as the number of people that are infected by each person who’s been infected; and the case fatality ratio (CFR): the number of people who die as a result of being infected. For example, an R0 of two means each infected person infects two people on average, while a number less than one means the disease is likely dying out in the population. Some diseases are deadlier than others: the average case fatality ratio for Ebola has been around 50 percent, for example, while the common cold is rarely deadly for otherwise healthy individuals.

But here’s the thing. Such epidemiological numbers are not fixed or immutable. They are not constants that exist independent of our actions. Where they land depends on the characteristics of the pathogen but also our response. By preparing now, we can alter both of those key numbers and save many lives.

The infectiousness of a virus, for example, depends on how much we encounter one another; how well we quarantine individuals who are ill; how often we wash our hands; whether those treating the ill have proper protective equipment; how healthy we are to begin with—and such factors are all under our control. After active measures were implemented, the R0 for the 2003 SARS epidemic, for example, went from around three, meaning each person infected three others, to 0.04. It was our response to SARS in 2003 that made sure the disease died out from earth, with less than a thousand victims globally.

Similarly, how many people die of seasonal influenza (or COVID-19) depends on the kind of health care they receive. In China, death rates are much higher in the overwhelmed Hubei province than the rest of the country exactly because of the quality of the care. Hospitals only have so many beds, especially in their intensive care units, and those who have a severe case of COVID-19 often need mechanical ventilation and other intensive care procedures. When they are out of beds, people end up languishing at home and suffering and dying in much larger numbers.

All this means that if we can slow the transmission of the disease—flatten its curve—there will be many lives saved even if the same number of people eventually get sick, because everyone won’t show up at the hospital all at once. Plus, if we can flatten that curve, there is more time to develop a vaccine or find antivirals that help.

There are now COVID-19 cases around the world, and epidemiological data from tens of thousands of cases. Here’s what we know: no doubt to the relief of parents everywhere, this disease is mild to nonexistent in children. There are almost no pediatric deaths and very few kids even seem to fall sick (though children may still be having clinically barely detectable cases, thus infecting others).

On the other hand, for the elderly or for people who have other diseases or comorbidities, it’s very serious, with death rates reaching up to 15 percent. It’s also a great threat to health workers who handle people with the virus every day, with thousands of cases already. Overall, it appears to have a case fatality rate around 2 percent, which is certainly very serious: seasonal flu, a serious threat in and of itself, has a case fatality rate around 0.1 percent in the United States, so this coronavirus is about 20 times as deadly (though again, this number may get much better or worse depending on the kind of care we can provide).*

There are also enough examples of mild or barely symptomatic COVID-19 cases and a long enough incubation period that this disease will almost certainly not be contained: we can’t expect to reliably detect everyone who’s ill and infectious, as we could with the SARS 2003 epidemic where the victims always exhibited high fever and thus were easier to identify and isolate.

All of this means that the only path to flattening the curve for COVID-19 is community-wide isolation: the more people stay home, the fewer people will catch the disease. The fewer people who catch the disease, the better hospitals can help those who do. Crowding at hospitals doesn’t just threaten those with COVID-19; if emergency rooms are overwhelmed, more flu patients, too, will die because of lack of treatment, for example.

Community-wide isolation also means that people will depend on deliveries for essentials: in ground-zero of Hubei, for example, that’s what’s happening. But there are only so many delivery workers and while deliveries are better than people going shopping, it’s still a risk to everyone involved. So if fewer people need deliveries, then fewer people will get sick, and more people who need help such as the elderly can still get deliveries as the services will be less overwhelmed.

Here’s what all this means in practice: get a flu shot, if you haven’t already, and stock up supplies at home so that you can stay home for two or three weeks, going out as little as possible. The flu shot helps decrease the odds of having to go to the hospital for the flu, or worse yet, get both flu and COVID-19; comorbidities drastically worsen outcomes.

Staying home without needing deliveries means that not only are you less likely to get sick, thus freeing up hospitals for more vulnerable populations, it means that you are less likely to infect others (while you may be having a mild case, you can still infect an elderly person or someone with cancer or another significant illness) and you allow delivery personnel to help out others.

If you are in a position of authority, that means figuring out how to help people stay at home, by preparing for and allowing for remote work, or allowing for future work to make up for missed days and other similar plans. Households and others who employ part-time help can do this, too: continue paying the cleaners; it can be reconciled later: without pay, people will not be able to prepare and or stay home.

If you live in a regular household, here’s a handy, one-page guide on what you need, with up-to-date information on top, but it is essentially this: potable water (that’s a general just-in-case item for all emergencies), shelf-stable food (doesn’t need refrigeration, again just-in-case), your prescription medication and a few basic medical supplies (first aid/your usual over-the-counter meds). Depending on the composition of your household, things to keep you busy (books, board games, toys).

Many are trying to stock up on masks, and many places have already run out—giving us a taste of what it means not to flatten the curve. If everyone gets masks all at once, there is just no way to keep up. However, don’t worry if you cannot find masks; those are most important for health care workers. Masks are useful for protecting others from your germs and also for making it harder or reminding you not to touch your face. For non–health care people, washing your hands often, using alcohol-based hand-sanitizer liberally and learning not to touch your face are the most important clinically-proven interventions there are (and teaching this to kids is priceless, as they may well be healthy but they are quite the germ vectors!). Clinical studies show amazing results to just washing hands regularly and well (at least 20 seconds!). Of course, if you yourself have any illness (cold or flu!), don’t sneeze or cough on people!

For food, you can just buy two or three weeks’ worth of shelf-stable food that you would eat anyway, and be done; this could include canned food like beans and vegetables, pasta, rice, cereals or oats, oils/fats, nuts and dried fruits. It’s really not that hard because we’re talking two-three weeks, so whatever you get is fine. It doesn’t have to be expensive or super healthy or specialized ready-to-eat meals in camo boxes guaranteed to survive the meteor strike! Rice, beans, salsa, ramen, some sort of cooking oil, oatmeal, nuts and dried or canned fruits and vegetables enough for two weeks can be had at relatively little cost and take up fairly little space.

Why not rely on refrigerated food? Sure, keep your fridge full, but it isn’t the back-up you need for two weeks. I personally don’t think the lights or water are going out. They haven’t in China, even in places like Hubei that are under much more stress, and they didn’t even during the catastrophic Spanish flu pandemic at the end of World War I. However, it’s generally good advice to rely on shelf-stable food and have some potable water in the house just in case there is some sort of temporary hiccup. A portable power bank for your phone that is kept charged is similarly generally useful anyway.

If you need prescription or other medications, it’s a good idea to stock up if possible—if for no other reason than to avoid pharmacies, both to reduce their burden and also to not be in the same line as people who may be ill.

That’s mostly it, for a household, along with whatever will help keep your household entertained and busy.

If you get lucky and no community isolation is necessary in your area? At worst, you can just eat your pantry, or just rotate it so that you have a few days’ worth of food and water—for the next weather event or hiccup.

As a society, there are much larger conversations to be had: about the way our health care industry runs, for example. How to handle global risks in our increasingly interconnected world. How to build resilient communities. How to reduce travel for work.

Those are all important discussions, and nothing in this short article replaces that. However, the practical steps facing households are immediate and important; for the sake of everyone else, prepare to stay home for a few weeks. You’ll reduce your own risks, but most importantly, you will reduce the burden on health care and delivery infrastructure and allow frontline workers to reach and help the most vulnerable.

I am not reassured

I don’t know about you, but I’m more worried about Trump’s redhats listening to this fool and failing to take precautions than I am worried about foreigners at this point.

Trump gave a little update today.

Pence lied. He personally refused to declare an emergency and told everyone to pray! It took weeks to finally deal with the problem — with science, which he doesn’t believe in.

It appears that in order to be allowed to speak to the public his public health experts have to fluff him energetically while they do it. I guess they have to do this in order to save lives. But it says everything about where we are as a country.

By the way, this is what the man in charge said just yesterday afternoon:

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  I’m going to South Carolina, a big rally.  A lot of people — thousands of people outside and it’s going to be very exciting.  We have a big day tomorrow, in terms of the Democrats watching.  See what happens.  And then, on Tuesday, you have a very big day, so it will be interesting to see.

We’re at the same number.  A lot of people are getting better.  Very much better.  The 15 number.  Plus we took in, as you know — from Japan, we took in some great American people and citizens and they’re getting better very rapidly.  They’re doing very well.  All of them are doing well.

The 15 people, likewise, we have them down to a much lower number.  They’re in good shape.  Most of them are in really good shape.  One of the people is — I wouldn’t say “not doing well,” but it’s very — she’s very sick.  But she’s hopefully getting better.

But we’re at the same number.  We’ve only — so, it — essentially, we’ve only had 15.  And a lot of that is because we called it early.  We — we were — we made a decision very early to close up our borders to certain areas of the world and we did that.  And so we are hopefully getting lower from that number, but let’s see what happens into the future.

Some countries are doing well; some countries are not doing well.  You can see that for yourself.  And a lot of things are happening.  We’re very well organized.  We have great talent, great doctors, great — great everyone.  There’s tremendous spirit.  A lot of spirit.

And, as you know, with the flu, on average, we lose from 26,000 to 78,000 people a year — even more than that, in some cases, some years.  We haven’t lost anybody yet.  And hopefully, we can keep that intact.  We — there have been no deaths in the United States at all.  A lot of that is attributable to the fact that we closed the border very early.  Otherwise, it could be a different story.

So we’ll — we’ll just keep doing a good job.  We’re ordering a lot of supplies.  We’re ordering a lot of — a lot of elements that, frankly, we wouldn’t be ordering unless it was something like this.  But we’re ordering a lot of different elements of medical.  We are working on cures and we’re getting some very good results.

Update: You knew that Mexican border thing was coming, of course. There have been no cases of Mexican immigrants spreading the disease. But Trump would naturally go here:

The Trump administration is considering imposing entry restrictions at the U.S.-Mexico border to control the spread of the coronavirus in the United States, according to two U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials.

Mexico’s government said on Friday it had detected three cases of coronavirus infection in three men who had all recently traveled to Italy, making the country the second in Latin America to register the fast-spreading virus.

The concern over containing the virus at the southern U.S. border comes as the Trump administration also weighs possible restrictions on the entry of travelers from South Korea, Italy and Japan.

The White House on Friday ordered the DHS to draft a range of options to respond to outbreaks in those countries, according to one of the officials and a third DHS official, all of whom requested anonymity to discuss the deliberations.

Two cases have been confirmed in Mexico. There are 16 in Canada.

It Is Despicable To Politicize the Outbreak of an Infectious Disease

If anyone tries to politicize the worldwide outbreak of an infectious disease, we should rise as one to condemn them. Now, what’s meant exactly by “politicize the worldwide outbreak of an infectious disease?” Here’s a perfect example:

Radio host Rush Limbaugh suggested on Monday that President Barack Obama is refusing to divert flights from Ebola-infected countries and close down America’s borders because he believes that the nation “deserves” to be infected with the virus given its history of perpetuating slavery.

Here’s another outrageous example of politicizing a a health crisis:

“I am starting to think that there is something seriously wrong with President Obama’s mental health,” Trump tweeted in 2014. “Why won’t he stop the flights. Psycho!”

And a third:

On today’s broadcast of “The 700 Club,” televangelist Pat Robertson claimed that President Obama is unconcerned about the outbreak of Ebola in western Africa, calling Obama a failed leader who “lives in a bubble of happiness.”

“The world is blowing apart because there is no leadership from the leading nation on Earth, we’re not leading and we have to lead. And in this Obama thing — excuse me, this Ebola thing — we can take care of that, it’s not that big a deal, it’s manageable, but if we don’t manage it quickly it’s going to spread and then it will be a worldwide disaster,” he said.

And a fourth:

Conservative eminence grise Phyllis Schlafly believes Obama is allowing it into the country deliberately. “Obama doesn’t want America to believe that we’re exceptional,” she said. “He wants us to be just like everybody else, and if Africa is suffering from Ebola, we ought to join the group and be suffering from it, too.”

I checked to see if the New York Times and Washington Post ran numerous stories from Obama administration officials deploring this politicization. But when I googled “obama administration condemns ebola right wing scare tactics,” I couldn’t find any stories from either source and couldn’t find a single bit of pushback from any Obama official on the politicization of the Ebola outbreak. Perhaps Obama and his colleagues were too busy actually trying to contain the outbreak to bother overly with what Limbaugh, Trump, and his cronies thought.

By the way, at the current rate, in about four months, worldwide deaths from COVID-19 infection might surpass the deaths from Ebola from 2014-2016. Go here and here.

Certainly, there are many differences between Ebola and COVID-19 but it is reasonable to assume that among the many factors that prevented a horror of nightmarish proportions in the US included not just luck but the competent response of the US government and health system. From a CDC overview of the Ebola response:

In the United States, widespread public alarm erupted after Ebola cases were diagnosed in Dallas, Texas, and New York City, New York. CDC, in collaboration with its U.S. and international counterparts, applied proven public health strategies as well as innovative new approaches to help control the Ebola epidemic in West Africa and strengthen public health readiness in the United States. Lessons learned include the recognition that West African and other countries need effective systems to detect and stop infectious disease threats, the need for stronger international surge capacity for times when countries are overwhelmed by an outbreak, and the importance of improving infection prevention and control in health care settings.

Ah yes, “countries need effective systems to detect and stop infectious disease threats. ” But what did Trump actually do prior to the spread of COVID-19? He fired the US pandemic response team.

So let’s be clear.

Criticizing Trump for his utterly incompetent response to COVID-19 is not political. Alarm at the Trump response to COVID-19 is entirely justified. And openly calling for the removal from office of a president that is this dangerously inept, this clueless, this utterly incapable of making rational informed health decisions and implementing rational health crisis policies is not just an act of patriotism but imperative for world health hygiene.

One Republican with a conscience

Baby steps:

Mitt Romney receives standing ovation in Denver for impeachment vote.

Mitt Romney receives standing ovation in Denver for impeachment voteThree weeks after becoming the first U.S. senator in history to vote to convict a president of his own party, Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah stopped in Denver on Friday night to discuss the state of democracies around the world.

Romney was joined by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former prime minister of Denmark, for a conversation at the University of Denver’s School of International Studies. The event was hosted by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, a non-profit founded by Rasmussen to advance democracies and free markets.

“I am so honored to be on stage with what I would say is a true profile in courage,” Rasmussen said of Romney during his opening remarks, prompting a standing ovation from the crowd of about 300 people in a packed university auditorium.

“There are a couple of times I have said things or taken positions that were more expedient than they were based upon conviction. I remember those things precisely and I regret them enormously,” Romney said. “And I said, ‘I’m not doing that again.’ I’ve reached a point in my life where I look back and I say of all the things I’ve done in my life, I think those couple of things really stand out and they really bother me. Years, decades later, and I’m not going to do that anymore.”

I think just being a member of the Trump party should be enough to bring on regrets, personally. But considering the sycophancy of the rest of the party, this counts for courage.

His reception may spell some trouble for Cory Gardner, champion Trump bootlicker. I have to assume that many of the people who went out to see Mitt Romney speak could be Republicans or Independents.

The invisible hand wasn’t washed

Helaine Olen made the case this week that our for-profit health system leaves Americans vulnerable to pandemics in a way a single-payer system might not. It forces citizens to weigh whether they can afford their co-pays and deductibles before seeking treatment. And to perhaps delay or avoid treatment that might help slow the spread of infection to others. Emergency room treatment for a sudden-onset illness like the coronavirus is even more costly.

The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that over half of employer-provided plans carry an individual deductible of more then $1,000. The average Affordable Care Act plan deductibles are over $4,000, and only about half of participants receive subsidy payments. Then there are the surprise medical bills that arrive from third-parties often long after after the initial treatment.

Olen writes:

The idea that people won’t think about all this when they consider going to the doctor is bonkers. Our system is set up to ensure that people prioritize their finances when they are sick. It’s the end result of the concept known as “skin in the game,” the idea — pitched by everyone from health-care wonks to insurance company insiders — that the way to get control of the high cost of American medical care is to turn the patient into a bargain-savvy shopper.

Stay home

Then there is the lack of paid leave issue Amanda Mull raises at The Atlantic. America’s workplace culture disincentivizes staying home when sick:

“With more than a third of Americans in jobs that offer no sick leave at all, many unfortunately cannot afford to take any days off when they are feeling sick,” Robyn Gershon, an epidemiology professor at the NYU School of Global Public Health, wrote in an email. “People who do not (or cannot) stay home when ill do present a risk to others.” On this count, the United States is a global anomaly, one of only a handful of countries that doesn’t guarantee its workers paid leave of any kind.

Try containing contagion when profit comes before people’s lives. Digby pointed out Friday that one reason we have a massive shortage of test kits for the virus is because under Trump the Centers for Disease Control “shunned the World Health Organization test guidelines” in favor of developing a more complex test of its own. It didn’t work.

“As a result, until Wednesday the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration only allowed those state labs to use the test — a decision with potentially significant consequences,” Pro Publica reports. By the time the agencies, under pressure, finally allowed hospitals top run their own testing (Wednesday), the government had declared a public health emergency requiring FDA approval of the tests:

Alexander Greninger, an assistant professor in laboratory medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center, said after he submitted his COVID-19 test, which copies the CDC protocol, to the FDA, a reviewer asked him to prove that his test would not show a positive result for someone infected with the SARS coronavirus or the MERS coronavirus — an almost ridiculous challenge. The SARS virus, which appeared in November 2002, affected 26 countries, disappeared in mid-2003 and hasn’t been seen since. The MERS coronavirus primarily affects the Middle East, and the only two cases that have been recorded in the U.S., in 2014, were both imported.

There are labs that can create parts of a SARS virus, but the FDA’s recommended supplier of such materials said it would need one to two months to provide a sample, Greninger said. He spent two days on the phone making dozens of calls, scrambling to find a lab that would provide what he needed.

Greninger said the FDA was treating labs as if they were trying to make a commercially distributed product. “I think it makes sense to have this regulation,’’ he said, when “you’re going to sell 100,000 widgets across the U.S. That’s not who we are.”

It is who we are with a cuthroat in the White House and metastasized capitalism drafting policy on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures.

Just-in-time expertise

Trump dismantled the CDC’s pandemic preparedness team two years ago because he did not want government epidemiologists just sitting around waiting for a pandemic. And because Barack Obama had hired them. Trump justified gutting the program because he could just get specialists off the street when he needed them. “We can build up very very quickly,” Trump said.

Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told the Washington Post, “You build a fire department ahead of time. You don’t wait for a fire.”

Under our private, for-profit system a hospital may have more people employed to bill you than to treat you, Mark Sumner quips at Daily Kos:

By treating health care like a business, Americans have already seen one of the first people who dared ask to be tested for COVID-19 get handed a bill for thousands of dollars, the primary result of which will be to dissuade other Americans from asking to be tested. Which is, right there, exactly the result that is best for insurance companies—and worst for the nation.

It’s an absolute certainty that Americans will hide their sniffles, drown their symptoms in over-the-counter drugs, and try to “tough it out” because they can’t afford health care. Besides, they have no paid sick leave, no paid child care, and no guarantee that missing a day’s work won’t mean being cast to the curb. All that “socialist” crap.

And because our whole system runs so excellently lean, American hospitals are already seeing shortages of everything from gowns to masks to painkillers, because the single-source, lowest-price vendor of those items happens to be in an area that’s already been overrun with the coronavirus. Not only have those factories on the far side of the planet been sitting idle for weeks, but what production has been available has been needed close to home.

Naturally, we have no issue with creating weapons stockpiles we hope never to need for killing people overseas. But saving our own lives at home? Nah. Taxes might go up. Better your temperature does instead, and your family’s. <cough, cough>

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 3rd Edition is ready for download. 2,600+ counties contacted, roughly 900 “opens,” over 400 downloads. (It’s a lead-a-horse effort.) Request a copy of my free countywide election mechanics guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

The coronavirus doesn’t need a tax cut

Obviously, the public health implications of this pandemic are the priority. We know that the Trump administration has already dropped the ball on that and we have little confidence that it’s going to get any better. Instead of listening to the experts, Trump is now tweeting random Christian doctors to his millions of followers:

https://twitter.com/BrandonBeckham_/status/1233405662123585536

The economic fallout from this pandemic is also a serious problem and it’s not unreasonable for the government to be concerned with it. But if you thought they would be any better at dealing with than they are at dealing with the public health crisis, think again:

Trump administration officials are holding preliminary conversations about economic responses to the coronavirus, as the stock market fell sharply again on Friday amid international fears about the outbreak, according to five people with knowledge of the planning.

Among the options being considered are pursuing a targeted tax cut package, these people said. They have also discussed whether the White House should lean even harder on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, though the central bank on Friday afternoon said it would step in if necessary.

No decisions at the White House have been reached on these options, and officials stressed conversations remained preliminary and extremely fluid.

Vice President Pence’s office is involved in the discussion of possible responses, two people said.

Literally, the only economic idea these people have is tax cuts.

So that’s going well too.